Ronald and Rothide: Uhh, I'm personally kinda certain that it wasn't the DevilCorp guys that showed those images

I didn't say they were. My apologies if I inadvertently conveyed that I did.

Oh, I see the point of my confusion:

"The most I'd be willing to sign in on is that they were programmed to be aware of past injustices committed by women against men, then sort of given a jump start." I mentally inverted it to "By men to women"

That said, what do you even mean by that?

It should've been "they were programmed by Curly to be aware of past injustices committed by men against women." Sorry, it was still early when I wrote that. :-/

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2545Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:31 am Post subject:

Darqcyde wrote:

Ronald wrote:

I read somewhere (and if I remembered where, I'd say so) that, supposedly, in a few hundred years the entirety of humanity will, as the end result of greater and greater acceptance of and increase in interracial relationships, have stabilized into a nice soothing café au lait color and race as we know it will have ceased to exist. Yay.

Oddly enough, AFAIK no SF films or TV shows set in the future have ever depicted this.

Fair enough, but it's sad that right now that our own first lady feels obligated to have "white hair".

Joined: 08 Dec 2012Posts: 77Location: Lost somewhere in space/time, as far as I can tell. Last known location: Canada

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:25 am Post subject:

Completely unrelated to the femisnism point (wow have there been a lot of posts overnight, I really missed a mess here), you would think devilcorp would have the security to make a hack, either via hard ware plugins or via software access to the network difficult, but Curly always seems to have an unlocked (or easily picked) port to plug into, that happens to support conventional cables, be connected to the network, and not require admin level access to do anything

alternatively, Curly already cracked all of the above, and the staff need to change their passwords more often to minimize windows for this_________________Don't presume to speak for me, and I will try to show you the same courtesy.
I acknowledge the possibility that I can be wrong at almost all times.
Any statements I make, unless otherwise marked, are just my opinion.
Have a pleasant day

The only thing that worries me about this is if the random devil worker hadn't shut everything down, he and Milton (that's the right name?) could have been seriously hurt by the Fembots. I'm all for awareness and free thought and will, but remember Milton and RDW are gender programmed too. We all are. Curly's actions could have had really bad consequences.

Oh and for those who brought all male circumcision, yes the female equivalent is worse. There is however a pretty active fight to stop male circumcision. Look up inactivist if it's something you feel strongly about.

2. The stuff Frobo Baggins uploads is FUCKING ILLEGAL now (maybe not foot binding but it's America, where that practice isn't commonplace), and you will be arrested if found practicing ANYTHING that was listed.

3. With that being said, it's clear that the matriarchy want the fembots to think that all men do this, or that people who buy a fembot does this to them.

4.But what is to be expected when they throw out literature written by people that said "all heterosexual sex is rape" and " all men should be killed for screwing the world up."

Rothide, you are too precious you know that?

2. Violence against women is a worldwide phenomenon. Just because those practices are illegal in America, doesn't mean it is elsewhere. That's why the United Nations is fighting it.

3. Spreading awareness is not trying to demonize all men.

4. I haven't read Dworkin or Solanas myself, and likely never will. That said, it is commonly argued that Dworkin's quote was taken out of context and that Solanas was being satirical.

SA_Penguin wrote:

Zhuinden wrote:

If I had been capable of altering the process of creating this comic, I would have added "domestic violence" onto the list.

Aw crud. You remind me of a pet peeve: an Australian, government sponsored, advert against domestic violence.
In the ad, a number of men talk about ways they treat their girlfriends / wives, and the point is made that their behavior is abuse. It ends with the catch phrase: "Violence against women - Australia says no".

The things that always irritated me: the lack of women as attackers [on men or other women] and the lack of male victims.

The ad COULD have said "Domestic violence - Australia says no". But the assumption was made that men never get assaulted, or it chose to ignore situations where that happens.
Since hitting back - even in defense - leaves you marked as the aggressor, the only option open to these males is to run away.

And you call this a patriarchy?

Seriously, dude. The Patriarchy hurts men too. Mainstream feminism is against domestic violence in general. The whole ignoring of female-on-male violence is because of the patriarchy.

"A man isn't a man if he gets beat up by a woman." This line of logic, directly responsible for what you just mentioned, is something the Patriarchy dictates. Not feminism.

Jeez. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: This stuff isn't rocket science.

Last edited by lol on Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:32 am; edited 3 times in total

Oh and for those who brought all male circumcision, yes the female equivalent is worse. There is however a pretty active fight to stop male circumcision. Look up inactivist if it's something you feel strongly about.

Seriously, dude. The Patriarchy hurts men too. Mainstream feminism is against domestic violence in general. The whole ignoring of female-on-male violence is because of the patriarchy.

"A man isn't a man if he gets beat up by a woman." This line of logic, directly responsible for what you just mentioned, is something the Patriarchy dictates. Not feminism.

Jeez. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. This stuff isn't rocket science. Why do you and so many other have such a hard time understanding such simple concepts?

To contribute to this, I'm reposting what I said earlier:

StateOfBedlam wrote:

The notion that women are weaker or more innocent, and somehow cannot be aggressors, is a consequence of the "patriarchy." Patriarchy is not without female privilege. What you're talking about is a very real, very annoying problem, though.

StateOfBedlam, I hadn't seen that forum but yes, that's part of it. There's other places too. I belong to a number of Facebook groups that deal with routine infant circumcision. I was just trying to let people know what to search for. Let them know that yes people are combating the male equivalent too.

If I had been capable of altering the process of creating this comic, I would have added "domestic violence" onto the list.

Aw crud. You remind me of a pet peeve: an Australian, government sponsored, advert against domestic violence.
In the ad, a number of men talk about ways they treat their girlfriends / wives, and the point is made that their behavior is abuse. It ends with the catch phrase: "Violence against women - Australia says no".

The things that always irritated me: the lack of women as attackers [on men or other women] and the lack of male victims.

The ad COULD have said "Domestic violence - Australia says no". But the assumption was made that men never get assaulted, or it chose to ignore situations where that happens.
Since hitting back - even in defense - leaves you marked as the aggressor, the only option open to these males is to run away.

And you call this a patriarchy?

Seriously, dude. The Patriarchy hurts men too. Mainstream feminism is against domestic violence in general. The whole ignoring of female-on-male violence is because of the patriarchy.

"A man isn't a man if he gets beat up by a woman." This line of logic, directly responsible for what you just mentioned, is something the Patriarchy dictates. Not feminism.

Jeez. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: This stuff isn't rocket science.

The fact that people harm their mate they even get married to is repulsively disgusting in the first place. Violence in general is an error.

But as much talk there is about "domestic violence", I thought it was more common due to "men thinking they are inclined to do so merely because women are meant to do what they tell them to do" or something of that line, which, I obviously do not approve or think, but I thought it was a general concept among those who haven't realized equality is a better option for everyone.

To be fair about the 'witch burning' panel, both men and women were burned at the stake.

I think women got burned more often because society was more distrustful of them. A lot more restrictions on their behavior than men and all that jazz.

Well, it kind of varied regionally. Over all though, there have been more victims of witch burning that are female than male. I think during the height of witch burning the total ended up at somewhere around 70-80% women. But, there were some countries where 80-90% of the people burned for witchcraft were men instead of women.

I've always had a bit of an issue with using witch burning as an example of women's problems though. I mean yes, the majority of the victims were women. However, if 1 million people were burned for witchcraft then at 80% women that still means that 200,000 men were burned for witchcraft. Treating it as specifically a women's problem feels like it is trivializing those 200,000 murders. That said, I also see the reason to address the things that put more of the focus on women. I just prefer to address the specific inequalities instead of using witch burning as a whole.

Actually, the same thing that I take issues with witch burning on trivializing the male victims by looking at it as only a women's problem I take issue with on most of the things listed. Foot binding, ok that isn't something men have to worry about as far as I'm aware. And of course it looks like the genital mutilation thing has been covered in the forum already. But how about battery? In my state over 1/4th of the reported battery victims are male. I have a feeling that the number of men is actually higher, because I'm betting that men are less likely to report the battery, but I've got no facts to back that up... It's just a hunch. Reporting of rape by men probably is the same way, again though that is just my hunch. I tried to look for statistics on it, but they changed wildly wherever I went, so I'll just say that obviously it happens to men to. Calling it a women's problem again feels like trivializing the male victims.

Finally, human trafficking. I'll just throw a quote from the American Bar Association website out there for this one "An estimated 600,000 to 800,000 men, women and children are trafficked across international boarders each year, and approximately 80% of trafficking victims are women and girls." Yeah, more women... But what about the 120,000 to 160,000 victims that are men and boys? I'd like to think they are important to._________________My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

I read somewhere (and if I remembered where, I'd say so) that, supposedly, in a few hundred years the entirety of humanity will, as the end result of greater and greater acceptance of and increase in interracial relationships, have stabilized into a nice soothing café au lait color and race as we know it will have ceased to exist. Yay.

Oddly enough, AFAIK no SF films or TV shows set in the future have ever depicted this.

Fair enough, but it's sad that right now that our own first lady feels obligated to have "white hair". Or what about Oprah, she's like one of the richest women--correction one of the richest people in the world, when's the last time anyone can remember her with kinky hair? (hint: you had to watch morning TV in Chicago in 1983) Just a symptom of racist societal pressures and expectations, that's all.

Or, uh, you know, different preferences in hairstyle, there's also that...

Um, no. It's definitely a race issue. I can't find the article, I think it was in WSJ or some business magazine, but the author basically went around interviewing successful black women (CEO's and other business executives) and the response was almost overwhelming: having a "black hairstyle" was career suicide. You had to have relaxed, white looking hair; the way they responded indicated that they felt they didn't have an option._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

2. The stuff Frobo Baggins uploads is FUCKING ILLEGAL now (maybe not foot binding but it's America, where that practice isn't commonplace), and you will be arrested if found practicing ANYTHING that was listed.

3. With that being said, it's clear that the matriarchy want the fembots to think that all men do this, or that people who buy a fembot does this to them.

4.But what is to be expected when they throw out literature written by people that said "all heterosexual sex is rape" and " all men should be killed for screwing the world up."

Rothide, you are too precious you know that?

2. Violence against women is a worldwide phenomenon. Just because those practices are illegal in America, doesn't mean it is elsewhere. That's why the United Nations is fighting it.

3. Spreading awareness is not trying to demonize all men.

4. I haven't read Dworkin or Solanas myself, and likely never will. That said, it is commonly argued that Dworkin's quote was taken out of context and that Solanas was being satirical.

SA_Penguin wrote:

Zhuinden wrote:

If I had been capable of altering the process of creating this comic, I would have added "domestic violence" onto the list.

Aw crud. You remind me of a pet peeve: an Australian, government sponsored, advert against domestic violence.
In the ad, a number of men talk about ways they treat their girlfriends / wives, and the point is made that their behavior is abuse. It ends with the catch phrase: "Violence against women - Australia says no".

The things that always irritated me: the lack of women as attackers [on men or other women] and the lack of male victims.

The ad COULD have said "Domestic violence - Australia says no". But the assumption was made that men never get assaulted, or it chose to ignore situations where that happens.
Since hitting back - even in defense - leaves you marked as the aggressor, the only option open to these males is to run away.

And you call this a patriarchy?

Seriously, dude. The Patriarchy hurts men too. Mainstream feminism is against domestic violence in general. The whole ignoring of female-on-male violence is because of the patriarchy.

"A man isn't a man if he gets beat up by a woman." This line of logic, directly responsible for what you just mentioned, is something the Patriarchy dictates. Not feminism.

Jeez. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: This stuff isn't rocket science.

3. Sinfest predominantly takes place in america, so yes, if curly went to African or Middle Eastern Devil-Corp, I wouldn't be upset, cause these disgusting practices are still in use. However Curly isn't there, she's here, and she did this to make a fight happen. It's not like the men where they were shown platitudes, this was "Look what they did to us, what they are doing to us, fight back damn it!"

4. I didn't say she was demonizing ALL men, but if this is programming to show what will be your job when you become an active fembot (still DUMB but I digress) then those images are what they are being programmed to be done to them, they are making the fembots think any owner they get will persecute or harm them.

5. She still said that "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women," which can be logically be truncated to "all heterosexual sex is rape", after that she then said that she actually meant that "Men feel the need to have an advantage in sex over women, thus the most extreme could be rape". Did she mean that at the beginning, or did she not want to seem "too extreme" so that people wouldn't buy the book?_________________The Angry Asshat.

jezus christ. i've been off of sinfest for a few years now, and during a bored sunday evening i think 'meh maybe i can get a laugh out of it', and this is what i get?

And seeing as i most people i remember from years ago in the forum aren't as active anymore either, i guess i'm not the only one.

this is bloody ridiculous

I've been here for 12 years... who are you?

I'm sorry you didn't "get" whatever it is you think you were owed here, but people leave for a lot of reasons. Not just because they agree with you. That's kind of egotistical, don't you think?_________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman